[XeTeX] resolution (was Re: The future of XeTeX)

Zdenek Wagner zdenek.wagner at gmail.com
Wed Aug 1 19:52:31 CEST 2012

2012/8/1 Keith J. Schultz <keithjschultz at web.de>:
> Am 01.08.2012 um 18:56 schrieb Zdenek Wagner <zdenek.wagner at gmail.com>:
>> 2012/8/1 Keith J. Schultz <keithjschultz at web.de>:
>>> Hi Zdenek,
> [snip, snip]
>> No, microtype does not offer more glyphs, it offers glyph distorted in
>> many different ratios. Multiple Master Fonts would be able to solve it
>> in a better way but they were declared obsolete. There are just a few
>> MMF fonts distributed with Acrobat Reader but the development was
>> stopped years ago.
>         Are you sure that you know what a glyph is. It is poosible to
>         take the shape glyph and "distorted" this is then rendered.
>         Factly, you are creating a different glyph.
>         Or would would consider a straight line to be a circle. Certainly,
>         you do not! In other words you are saying that the glph -- is the
>         same as o!
Microtype does not turn lines into circles and never did so. Microtype
changes the aspect ratio, nothing more, nothing less.

>>> To come back to Gutenberg, how Glyphs did he use? (No, I do not want an
>>> answer) Literally, serveral thousand if not millions. I leave it as a thought
>>> experiemnt to figure out why!
>> Approximately 2000 per page. They could be reused but not endlessly.
>> We use computer typesetting systems because production can be faster
>> and cheaper, not because Gutenberg was unable to do it.
>         This is exactly, my point. Craftsmen can create fine details, yet the
>         positioning and replication induces errors which is beyond the resolution of
>         the details! Then, there is, also not just one craftsman involved. each adding
>         his/her own personal touch. These variations gone beyond are higher than
>         the resolution we have today. I do admit that these variations is what adds
>         to the artist value.
Higher resolution does not imply higher typographical quality. Too low
resolution would be bad.

> regards
>         Keith.
> --------------------------------------------------
> Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
>   http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex

Zdeněk Wagner

More information about the XeTeX mailing list